koios_cli_protocol_params

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level but does not explain what 'current' means (e.g., latest epoch), what the response looks like, or how pagination parameters (limit, offset) apply to something seemingly singular. This lack of detail leaves important behavioral traits opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, which is good. However, it largely restates information already implied by the tool name ('protocol_params', 'cli'), and it misses the opportunity to clarify the return format or pagination behavior. It is not as under-specified as a tautology, but it adds minimal value over the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. The presence of pagination parameters on a 'current parameters' endpoint is confusing and not explained. The description does not clarify whether the tool returns a single object or a list, nor does it explain how the pagination parameters interact with the 'current' concept. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (limit, order, offset, select all have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to because the schema is self-explanatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('current protocol parameters'), and adds a valuable differentiator with 'in cardano-cli compatible format'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like koios_epoch_params or koios_param_updates, which also deal with protocol parameters, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this returns the current active parameters while koios_epoch_params returns historical ones, nor does it note any exclusions (e.g., 'not for historical queries'). The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.